I honestly think Only 1 percentage of humans on Earth Are Moderately Intelligent to make society a better place... MIDDLE EAST is without a doubt still living in 1500 yrs past, where they still require more slaves and Islamic Shariya laws on A Global scale.... It's Degrading to Humanity... East is The Future, They have best adaptation in their genes... Britain and Muslims looted and Divided India... Hindu majority, Developed to Today's India in 1/5th of the time they were oppressed.... Because They know that Religion is a Way of Life and not a Lens to View Objective Reality with... plus It's not mandatory to Follow anything in Hinduism it's just a Moral conduct to Treat other as yourself... or vice versa.. Japan Tanked Bombs, wars, and Is still a Significant Economy and Leading Tech. nation Meanwhile Islamic nations rank Least in almost all detrimental criteria like Unsafe, Poor Freedom of Speech or expression, Barbaric treatment of minorities and continuous persecution of Anything that's not Islamic...
No... what you see on TV are ALL things that has already happened. Yet young men whether black or white continue to do wrong on the American Streets decade after decade. 90% of Movies and TV specials are all based on Real EVENTS!!!!!
@@Frey_00there has to be a lot of people for that. In some cases, even 3/4 eye witnesses were proven to be wrong. If one person in a state of chaos, panic, danger, or fear can get details wrong, it’s possible that they all can. I’ll try and look up the case I’m think about, but there was a case we studied in school that was about 3 men all having different accounts of how things happened in the original police reports, but by the time it went to court, all 3 official eye witness testimonies done in court were nearly identical. The lawyer brought up the wildly different police reports and was able to prove that the men’s eye witness testimonies had been shifted, changed or otherwise wrong to begin with. They couldn’t prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty. We were never told in school whether the defendant WAS guilty. That part honestly scared me 😂
I mean if this whole skit is to prove that eye-witness testimony is terrible, then you should be able to argue that his eye-witness to anyone else in the store is just as terrible.
@@DerekReznik Sure,so now the opposing side has to go and find those potential eyewitnesses.....and you 've already set the precedent that they are also unreliable.
It doesn't matter the record already recognized the man in the defended sheet as the person of the name they were looking for you can't rename the defendant sitting in the finished chair if you already recognize them as such he's already been recognized as the defendant there is no other defendant with the fed in a record sitting in the chair for the defendant of record get the fuck out of here
@@itz--microchipif you mean why he had someone else instead, im thinking it’s to prove he’s really not at fault and the guy accusing is just pinning it on the defendant
@@AlwaysBolttheBird I think there would some legal issues with the provocatory nature of how Saul did this. But if he told the judge and jury before hand it would definitely be allowed
I can't imagine it would be allowed in court. Also, in this case it happened to work. What if the defendant would've said that its not him? :D Plot armor ftw.
@@AlwaysBolttheBirdLegal Eagle did a video on this scene and yes it’s not acceptable. I don’t recall the full details but I think it’s because they would have had to have the “false defendant” sworn in and that’s against the rules/law or something.
@matthewkreps3352 yes, but moreso just to avoid the contempt charges and smooth the process over, no? I can't see any honest reason that this wouldn't be legal. It just makes the point that suspicion and circumstance don't equate guilt.
...no it didnt change anything , it was a weak attempt for Saul to imply the judge allowed it so therefore its okay. the reality is thats a contempt of court charge and mistrial
@spg1794 not really you are wrong lol .....the judge never recognized the defendent in his or her courtroom which is favoritism which allows the defendent to completely run the show and even earn compensation 😮
@@BessuxSo... The witness incorrectly identified the criminal after saying he could absolutely identify the criminal. And that's a flaw with Goodman's ethics and not with the witness? Really guy? Okay then.
@@RafaelKeveluk Sim, "my guy". The criminal Jimmy is actually helping, in case you forgot, so here's your reminder, so make sure whatever's left in between your ears memorizes it this time.
in a real court you could get in trouble doing it this way, but if you tell the judge and then have the defendent not at your side and just in the courtroom you can do that
It wasn't clever. Defense attorney's have been using that one for decades, and failing with it for just as long. You can always find someone you can make look enough like a given person to fool everyone from 20 feet away. When they pull stunts like that, it just tells you they are trying to distract a jury from the mountain of physical evidence against a client.
@guruwu1566 Actually it hasn't as a number of lawyers have commented on this over the years. There isn't a case ever where this was done as it's technically fraud and could have the counsel disbarred. Used for decades? Get the fuck outta here. Link one case in the US where it's been done. Don't bother responding till then.
But doesn't "you didn't recognize him either" weaken his case? Saul literally just admitted that he found someone that looked similar enough to fool most people that briefly met the guy. That means that his defendant is wery likely the guy, isn't it?
The entire point is that if he's able to find a lookalike so easily at some random bar, what's to say the witness isn't recalling their face accurately. I don't think this was to try and humiliate the store owner but rather discredit eye witness testimony
And still the wrong guy. This really is a good example of why eyewitness testimony is often very flawed. There is no proof that fingerprints are unique either.
The writer who came up with this scene is pure genius Edit- in the comments someone posted the real case it was based on. The lawyer got in trouble and was fined but it was only 100$ lol
@@bryansummers3219 Saul chose someone who looked exactly like the defendant so the witness wouldn't notice. Even if he had memorized the guy's face it would still have been hard to tell.
@@exhanfxancis9808 I doubt a lawyer would expect a judge (or anyone for that matter), to recognize someone they've never seen before. What's up with you clowns and pointing out the obvious? 😂
@@basementnetwork By bringing the man to the counsels table (which should not be made accessible to anyone but the defendant and counsel (defendant attorney)) he has already allowed for the misrepresentation of the defendant's identity which is illegal, unethical, and would not be allowed in ANY court in the united states. Get back with me once you pass your Bar(rrrrs) exam.
@@jacobdetamore7399Meanwhile Gen alpha "Your honor my client couldn't have done it as the time of the crime they/them were busy watching skibidi toilet and rizzing up their AI girlfriend with a lvl 5 gyatt"
In this scenario the guy was tricked. He had already seen the defendant and had no way of knowing that the defendant was switched. They intentionally made the decoy look like the defendant
This is real, heard stories where expensive lawyers who work at firms recommending lawyers like saul but irl because they know the judge will spite them plus lawyers like saul but irl deal way more with robbery/possesion cases. im trying to find this clip of a guy talking about it,
So was James Spader (aka Raymond Reddington) and not just once either. 10 seasons, that show (The Blacklist) went, and every single season, James Spader delivered the best performance in all of TV. That’s 10 counts of Highway Robbery that whoever votes on that shit is guilty of.
Cause im mr sakey, yes im the real sakey, all you other real sakeys are just hollis earley. so wont the real sakey please stand up, please stand up, please stand up
This actually happened with Jim Morrison and actor Tom Baker. Jim did some antics on a plane and when he went to trial shaved and had his hair looking like Baker. Stewardess couldn’t tell them apart. All charges dropped.
There was actually a real life example of this happening where the lawyer and the client actually switched outfits and changed places. It saved the man from false accusations that a woman and her lawyer were making against him just for a payday.
@@TheRata1998I'm pretty sure you're allowed to defend yourself in court, so no, it wouldn't be illegal I don't think. You're just not allowed to present yourself as a lawyer for someone else
that's a fact. but before doing that you are asked by the judge how you want to be represented, if you state that you will have a lawyer then you can't represent yourself.
@@TheRata1998 They did it right in front of the judge before the woman and her lawyer walked in, so the judge was aware of what they were doing and allowed it.
"Bait and switch" generally refers to when one person offers something alluring or desirable as part of a deal or transaction and then, after receiving payment or compensation for that certain something, giving the other person something other than what was originally promised ❤
Charles McGill was jealous as f*ck. His brother was a better attorney without all the accolades and fluff. I want who can get me out of a jam when it’s warranted.
In movies maybe but in real life they pull this all the time. They say the most dramatic things possible every sentence to the point where it means nothing anymore
@@h.a.l.3980it should. If an eyewitness can be deceived by someone who looks mildly like the person, they didn’t have a good enough accounting of the incident. I’m pro-adding this to the tool box.
@@HALLish-jl5mothats what happens in the gap between the shows though. He wasnt around to keep them out when he needed to go into hiding (more cred) so they probably missed him
@@HALLish-jl5mo your standard for what qualifies as a great lawyer is not realistic, therefore your initial question is nonsense. It simply isn't possible to keep every+ defendant out of prison because
This is wild "Dec. 20, 2017 - The substitution of a defendant with someone who looks similar for witness identification in a trial was a successful tactic for a defense lawyer - but not without consequences for the lawyer."
U realize he was found in contempt and had to serve 30 days for making the judge look stupid.. that's how the justice system is.. and it was completely dismissed and swept under the rug
No, all of it is clear to showcase he is innocent, the alleged case should be struck from any background checks, however, as to not hurt any future chances on employment
Had Goodman adviced the judge, they might actually have entertained this kind of thing. But by not informing the court beforehand, it would be a mistrial and Goodman would have been in for a disciplinary hearing.
A competent lawyer would never do this. You never ask opposing witnesses a question without first being 100% sure how they would answer. Imagine if this witness had pointed out the true defendant. Jimmy would have guaranteed his client a conviction and presumably jail time given the nature of the offence.
@@isaacgeier6158 no. Jimmy broke protocol doing this, and a mistrial must be declared. You can't then use things that happened in a previous trial to make your argument in a new one. So no, he ain't getting acquitted based on THIS.
@@Qwerty12345-r I had asked a lawyer what they do in this instance. They said they could have their client sit with other people in the gallery. Then they could ask the judge permission to see if they could ask the witness to point them out among the people.
It proved that anyone that looked like his client could have done it actually...... Specially when the only witness said I don't need time that's him and pointed at the wrong guy..... Created reasonable doubt.... Case done.
Nope. It cast reasonable doubt on the eyewitness testimony. And to be blunt, a preponderance of evidence should not be solely reliant on eyewitness testimony as it is very unreliable. It exists mainly for two reasons. One is to help the defense/prosecution find leads to build up a case or to build up a defense with which they can then find empirical evidence to support. Ideally empirical evidence would lead to possible credibility of eyewitness testimony, and this could be used to sway the judge/jury. The other reason is if there is not empirical evidence it can still have a small chance of swaying the judge or the jury if another witness corroborates the story, or if the sole witness is convincing enough or has enough details to be convincing enough to sound credible. Either way, it does not mean the eyewitness testimony is reliable.
@@rebelsrequiem3763 lol ofc they didn't duh. It's just the way the sentence was phrased gave a CoD player vibe. You're clearly not about fun & games so you wouldn't get it
@izzydanWTF imma be real. COD was never a part of my childhood fully. That goes to Resident Evil. But that's like seeing someone talking about zombies and going, "Oh my god, Resident Evil fan spotted!!".
@rebelsrequiem3763 person likes zombies... someone makes resident evil reference... makes sense to me. People make references. It's a pretty common thing lol.
This is why Saul Goodman is one of the best characters to grace a television screen. Smart, vivid imagination and as incorrigible as the people he defends.
@@mattandersen2786 probably not. the extra person isn't going to testify and didn't witness anything. and yes. this tactic is 100% valid but you need to tell the judge beforehand.
@@WilliamWizer-x3m I think anyone participating in the court proceedings would need to be on the witness list and the guy basically took the place of the defendant for that part of the trial. Saul says the bartender from Belen has "a very good alibi" so at the very least Saul is going to have a witness statement and probably some other evidence that can be submitted as an exhibit in order to verify that alibi if they're asked to do so.
@@mattandersen2786 he was just mocking the fact that the man he had pointed couldn't be the culprit because he had "a very good alibi" other than looking like the suspect, he isn't related to the case in any way so it would make no sense for him to make any statement.
@@WilliamWizer-x3m You're very obviously talking about something you know very little about. If you knew anything about trial/court procedure, you would know that anyone participating in the court proceedings didn't just show up randomly one day. It all needs to be documented through witness lists, witness statements and exhibits. Hell, even Huell had to be on the witness list so he could bump into Chuck in the hallway and plant Jimmy's cell phone on him.
@@HovaSwervedon’t expect too much lawyer stuff but BCS is hands down the greatest show to be made. Way better than BB You have any lawyer shows/movies that you’d recommend?
@@HovaSwervethe show is called "better call Saul" And you knew about it and it's name, yet you never figured out it's about Saul? Excuse me what the fuck?
@@gvc76False. He can't tell the difference between 2 people which means there's doubt which means not guilty. That's why the police say in a line up it's better to say you don't know and not sure then pick the wrong person. Because picking the wrong person will ruin the ENTIRE case.
"Uhhh... This is such a great Idea, uhhh... we should copy this, I will sit in the back and sleep while my look-alike will take my place, uhhh... Bigly.' - trump
